win2000 or xp

dhawald

Solid State Member
Messages
20
which is more stable win2k or xp

what are the features that win xp have over win2k other than looks

please help

will give free halo game cd for the best reply
 
dhawald said:
will give free halo game cd for the best reply

People won't cae about the stupid CD...People here try there best to help people who need to be helped and they don't need to be bribed....
 
I've had much better luck with 2000. It takes up a good bit less on your harddrive, and has much less usless stuff. Personally, I dispise all MediaPlayers past 6.4, basically any version of Internet Exploroer, and the built in burning software...just for starters.

Now I know XP has some tweaks such as full color icons(rather than 256 in 2000) but I mean really. When you compaire to two, is there THAT much of a difference?

Oh, XP does boot MUCH faster than 2000 for the most part, but once again, that's nothing huge.
 
with the sp2 upgrades from microsft I feel xp is better.
Free popup blocker, better firewall, cacheing is improved, Internet connections are easier-broadband instantly supported, far more built in drivers.

Ive had xp pro setup and not needed a single driver.
 
Looks like we're going to be battling this out ;P I don't trust many of XP's drivers. They usally work on, but some(particually video) don't seem to be as good as what you can get from the manufactures site.

As for broadband, it seems most computers use ethernet connections to the broadband modems. IN that case, any OS is basically set up for the interet ;P On that note, I don't like XP's way of networking. Well, mostly Home edition. All the stupid wizards confuse me and make things take longer. Now maybe if someone has no experince with something, it would help. But I mean come on, it even has a wizard to help search your comp ;P

Stability, I should add I guess since you asked about that. I've personally had more problems with XP than 2000. Now I do have one comp that is running XP pro and has been since about a year ago with no real problems. However, on my computers that stuff really mattesr(IE my server and my video computer) I run 2000 on them.

I guess all in all, it depends on what features you really want.
 
i agree, i've had the this comp. for 4 years now...
and i've never needed any driver's for it.

i know i can do driver updates, but everything is running perfect so i'm not changing a thing.

also i have the entire partion backed up using norton ghost...cuz when i get another hhd.i'm gunna make a duplicate on the new drive...:p
 
i would say that the 2000 is more stable, but XP is more fancier, with more features...... i have 2000 and it rarely hs problems, just dont get ME, cuz ME sucks shit...:D
 
personally i like 2000 better than xp... i own both and i find that 2000 has a much cleaner interface (and also i just can't stand all the "user friendly" features of xp). 2000 just seems to run smoother than xp and most applications that work on xp also work on 2000. maybe its just the fact that i have 2000 professional and xp home edition... anyway i just thought i would share my opinion

-broknhabit
 
Ok here I go:

I have owned about every operating system possible, and I think that 2000 is very unstable compared to XP. It most often has some kind of problem with loading especially, and in the future will eventually have to be taken in to get repaired if used very often. It is less compatible for gaming and I think imaging as well compared to XP. It is not as user friendly as XP. I also have learned that Microsoft Office applications seem to run a bit slower than on XP, and even 98 for that matter, depending on the resources on your system. So my choice for you would of course be XP. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom